The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philippa Whitford on 2015-10-29.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much NHS England spent on agency nurses in each of the last three years.
Alistair Burt
The information that has been requested is not recorded centrally by the Department of Health or NHS England.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philippa Whitford on 2016-02-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what support his Department provides to (a) claimants of universal credit while the benefit is assessed and dispatched and (b) people becoming unemployed from low-paid and temporary jobs who have no redundancy payments or other income.
Priti Patel
Advance payments of up to 50% of their Universal Credit award are available to all new Universal Credit claimants who are in financial need.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philippa Whitford on 2016-02-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what support his Department provides to (a) claimants of universal credit while the benefit is assessed and dispatched and (b) people becoming unemployed from low-paid and temporary jobs who have no redundancy payments or other income.
Priti Patel
Advance payments of up to 50% of their Universal Credit award are available to all new Universal Credit claimants who are in financial need.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philippa Whitford on 2016-06-06.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment her Department has made of the effect of (a) immigration rules in general and (b) income requirements on the eligibility of British citizens with non-EU partners to return to the UK and the incidence of family separation.
James Brokenshire
New family Immigration Rules, including a minimum income threshold for British citizens sponsoring a non-EU partner, were implemented on 9 July 2012 to prevent burdens on the taxpayer, promote integration and tackle abuse.
We have continued to keep the new Rules under review and to make adjustments in light of feedback on their operation and impact. We have also taken into account the findings of the courts, including the July 2014 Court of Appeal judgment upholding the lawfulness of the minimum income threshold.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philippa Whitford on 2016-06-06.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, for what reason self-employed adoptive parents are excluded from the financial support offered to other workers to allow them to take full leave and settle an adopted child from the care system into their family.
Nick Boles
Society benefits from parents being able to take time off work to care for their children whilst remaining in employment. Employed adopters have a statutory entitlement to Adoption Leave and Pay (subject to eligibility requirements) on the basis that individual employers would otherwise not offer socially optimal levels of leave and pay.
However, self-employed adopters can decide how much time off to take. Since affordability may limit the time away from work that some self-employed adopters can take, statutory adoption guidance says that Local Authorities should consider making a payment equivalent to Maternity Allowance in cases where adopters do not qualify for any statutory payment because of self-employment. This payment is discretionary and means-tested to ensure that resources are targeted at those adopters who need it most, as part of a package of post-adoption support.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philippa Whitford on 2016-06-20.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many unaccompanied child refugees have been reunited with relatives in the UK in the last year.
Mr Robert Goodwill
Data on cases progressed under the Dublin III Regulation is recorded on the main immigration database. However, this data is not held in a way that allows it to be reported on automatically and is therefore not currently available.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philippa Whitford on 2016-06-28.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when his Department received the request from the Scottish Government to allow increased payments to Scottish people affected by contaminated blood through the current financial structures.
Jane Ellison
Since the Scottish Government announced its decision to accept the recommendations of its independent financial review in March 2016, officials in the Department and Scottish Government have been working together to facilitate the increased payments using the current payment scheme. There have, in addition, been recent conversations at Ministerial level.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philippa Whitford on 2016-10-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what preparations his Department has made for the likely relocation of the headquarters of the European Medicines Agency away from London after the UK leaves the EU.
David Mowat
The future arrangements which apply in relation to European Union institutions based in the United Kingdom should be determined once the UK has left the EU. It is too early to speculate on the future location of the European Medicines Agency.
The tribute made by Philippa Whitford, the SNP MP for Central Ayrshire, in the House of Commons on 10 September 2022.
I rise on behalf of my constituents in Central Ayrshire to express our sympathies to the royal family and to pay respect to Her late Majesty for her long service of threescore years and ten—literally a biblical lifetime. Being from Northern Ireland, for me her greatest contribution was to peace and reconciliation on the island of Ireland, through both bravely welcoming Martin McGuinness here in London and her state visit in 2011, which brought so much healing.
The debate has already woven the most important part of any funeral: the eulogy. It reminds me of the traditional wakes with which I grew up, with the coffin lying in state in the living room surrounded by family, friends and neighbours. What struck me then as a little girl was how the sadness gave way once the funny, embarrassing stories started, with talk of someone being on a chair in Blackpool singing at the top of their voice. Those stories changed the whole mood in the room that I observed as a five, six and seven-year-old. The sombre tones were replaced by laughter. Strangely, the coffin often turned into a coffee table, covered in glasses. I do not think that Her late Majesty is likely to face that indignity, but I remember my uncle saying that he aspired to being buried in a coffin with ring marks because that would be a symbol of a really good wake: one that accepts that death is part of life and one that celebrates not a life ended but a life completed.
In the same way, the Chamber has been lifted by so many funny stories that demonstrate Her late Majesty’s great sense of fun, both in public, such as the stunts at the Olympics or with Paddington Bear, or in private, as we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members today. The most illuminating are those that show how she used humour to put people at ease, out of her kindness. I think that she is probably delighted at the sheer amount of laughter there has been in the Chamber over the last two days.
Having walked the last journey with many of my patients over a lot of years, I know that virtually all of us would choose to die peacefully at home, and that is exactly what the Queen did. So we should take comfort from the fact that she ended her life peacefully and quietly at home in her favourite place, Balmoral, surrounded by her family and loved ones. It does not get better than that. So while we offer our sympathy and condolences to her family in their sorrow at her loss, we should be glad for her. She goes to her rest, welcomed once again into the arms of her beloved Philip and, no doubt, already sharing a wry joke, probably at our expense. For Her late Majesty, I simply pray, may she rest in peace.
The speech made by Philippa Whitford, the SNP MP for Central Ayrshire, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.
The Bill unilaterally sets aside significant provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol, an international agreement for which the Prime Minister was quite happy to take credit when he claimed in the 2019 election campaign that he would “get Brexit done”. The Foreign Secretary has said that the Bill is needed to protect the Good Friday agreement, but dismantling the protocol against the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland also risks undermining that agreement. She said that the protocol needs cross-community consent. Indeed it does, but does she have consent from both communities for this Bill? I doubt it.
Scant consideration was given to the Province by Brexiteers before the referendum, nor was consideration given thereafter to the fact that the majority in Northern Ireland, as in Scotland, voted to remain in the EU. It is the UK’s exit from the EU, rather than the protocol, that has created the difficult situation for Northern Ireland. That was recognised by the then First Minister Arlene Foster when she demanded a special trading arrangement for Northern Ireland shortly after the referendum—a request for special treatment that she and her party now repudiate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) has already highlighted, there were only three choices: a border on the island of Ireland; close alignment between UK and EU standards to reduce checks, including a veterinary agreement; or checks carried out at Northern Ireland ports. The return of border infrastructure in Ireland was seen as an unacceptable threat to peace, but it was the Prime Minister’s choice of a hard Brexit with maximal divergence from the EU that inevitably left checks on Irish sea crossings as the only remaining option.
The issues posed by an Irish sea border were clearly highlighted in the Government’s own impact assessment, which undermines the claim of sudden necessity and means that the Prime Minister’s December 2019 claim that there would be
“no question of there being checks on goods going NI-GB or GB-NI”
was disingenuous, to say the least. The UK Government state that there is no need for checks, as current UK regulations are close to those of the EU; indeed they are, but the Government are proposing a bonfire of EU regulations and are already negotiating trade deals that would allow lower-standard foods and goods to be imported into the UK.
The Prime Minister cites economic failure and the outcome of the recent Northern Ireland elections as justification for tearing up the agreement, despite a clear majority of Assembly Members supporting the protocol in principle, and despite recent economic data showing Northern Ireland outperforming Great Britain. Business surveys by the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry show that two thirds of local businesses have now adapted to the protocol, and 70% claim that they see advantages in their dual position, which is something that the rest of us in the UK have lost.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
My hon. Friend is quite right that there is an advantage to business and to the economy of Northern Ireland. Interestingly, last week the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could not tell me whether the Government had done any economic analysis whatever.
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities has said that introducing a border for imports in the United Kingdom
“would have been an act of self-harm.”
If that were to happen, it would make it even more obvious that the Northern Ireland protocol was an economic advantage to Northern Ireland. It would not be doubly hampered—first by this, and secondly by the completion of Brexit borders.
Dr Whitford
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is without question that issues with, in particular, the implementation of the protocol remain: 29% of businesses are still experiencing some difficulties, although the number of businesses facing serious problems has dropped from 15% to 8% since last year. That improvement over time suggests that some of last year’s problems could have been avoided if businesses had been given more than a matter of weeks to get ready for last January.
I think we all recognise that supply chains from GB producers and manufacturers would certainly benefit from technical improvements, especially improvements to reduce the burden on goods that are for sale purely in Northern Ireland, but while the EU proposed mitigations last October—including an express lane for exactly those kinds of goods—the UK Government have not engaged in any discussions since February, so talk of 18 months of solid negotiation is nonsense. Despite the remaining challenges, Northern Ireland business leaders have made it clear that while they seek improvements, they do not want the protocol to be removed.
The loss of trust in the UK Government to honour their commitments is already holding back participation in Horizon Europe to the detriment of research teams across the UK, especially in Scotland, where they had disproportionate success in attracting EU funding. Disapplying almost half the protocol undermines a key part of the withdrawal agreement, and, as others have said, runs the risk of provoking a trade war with the EU, further exacerbating the cost of living crisis. The EU would then be likely to place tariffs on UK exports, and, given that Scotland produces the UK’s leading food and drink exports—whisky and salmon—Scottish businesses would bear the brunt of such retaliatory action.
It is vital that the UK and the EU get back round the table with all the stakeholders from Northern Ireland to discuss practical improvements to the implementation of the protocol, reducing the friction and intrusion to a minimum while keeping the economic benefits for the Province. Solutions can be achieved only with willingness, trust and good will, but, sadly, those are now in very short supply, and unlikely to be improved by the Prime Minister’s plan to wreck an international agreement that he signed less than three years ago.